Morality in Nature?

 

 Morality is not something often consider in natural history, the very framework of studying wildlife precludes the analysis of right and wrong. In nature there is only life and death something that was brought into focus this weekend and prompted these thoughts.

Much of scientific methodology encourages independence from the test subject in the case of the ecologist these are the birds and animals we observe. I have written before about my views on anthropomorphism and their place in study. I find it hard to be entirely cold and calculating when observing wildlife, spend enough time doing so and you will soon begin to understand the patterns.

I have watched swans for many years and have seen at first hand their different personalities. Whilst their behaviours may only be analogous to our own emotions there is some level of personal processing occurring within them, the more complex the animal the more obvious this becomes. Just look at how Elephants mourn their dead or Orangutan’s care for their young.

So, what prompted this internal dialogue? I spent some of the past weekend photographing birds in my garden. Taking time to practice with my camera and appreciating the common nature of their behaviour. Once I had done this for a few hours I returned inside. It was then that I was called back to the garden to see a Sparrowhawk that had caught something and landed on the pergola.

Sparrowhawks are relatively common to my garden and I have several photos of them perched in the tree and some of them devouring their unlucky prey. A thrill of excitement flowed through me. This was nature in action, an example of a hunter in its prime feeding to survive. It was only when the hawk moved to the birdbath and revealed the deep orange red breast of a robin in its talons that my interest instantly changed to horror.

Two robins visit the garden. They are delightful birds and highly inquisitive. They potter about gardeners looking for grubs and can be quite easily encouraged to feed from the hand. When I supposed the Sparrowhawk had caught a starling or sparrow as it normally did, I was fairly non-plussed, I had some thought of the life ended but in reality, starlings and sparrows were faceless. The robin was something different. It had a stronger identity. Perhaps the identity is born from its cultural relevance in the UK, the iconic Christmas bird or maybe it is their generally friendly nature. Either way this death shook me more. So much so that I followed my mother to frighten the hawk away even though the robin was past saving. The interaction shook us both and left me considering my prejudices. The sparrowhawk was doing what it does naturally, something I was fine with as long as it took from the faceless masses or birds to which I had less of a connection with.

So where does this revelation leave me. For one I can acknowledge how connected I become to wildlife, how I seem to value one species above another and accept that nature will do as nature does. Lastly that to be a good naturalist one needs to allow one’s emotions to embrace the world where instead the ecologist may stand remote and calculating, the naturalist does their best work when immersed in their subject and connected to it on the deepest level. What the robin incident showed me was the conflict between the scientific ecologist in me and the naturalist, and I think it is a blend of these two approaches that help me to understand the natural world all the better.